We were taught by the man who taught our concealed carry class, that shooting
someone ought to be a last resort. Even if the shooting is perfectly justified,
the person or their family can sue, and there is some chance they may win,
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If they don't win the cost of the
lawyer is quite high too. Not to mention all the time and hassle.

If
ever you find yourself itching for a (gun) fight, you are on dangerous ground,
likely to make a grave mistake if given the opportunity. The best attitude is
the one you see in martial arts films, that is do all you can to defuse the
situation, walk or run away.

Even if I got off scott free from this
shooting, I would hate to think I had paralyzed another person if there was any
chance at all I could have avoided it.

There is another story about this case in the paper today. Based on that story,
and the closing paragraph of this story, I am guessing the evidence they wanted
admitted pertained to allegations of sexual misconduct against the guy who was
shot. At the time of the trial, they would have been allegations - the guy was
not convicted until later. You cannot use allegations of a crime as a defense
against a crime. Also, it is very common for information about other events to
not be allowed.

This guy chose to leave his home, with his gun, to
hunt down the other guy. He had plenty of time to calm himself down.

Yes - I have a teenage daughter. Yes - I understand the urge to cause
violence to someone who has threatened harm to your child. No - I do not
understand giving into that urge instead of controlling your emotions and acting
in the manner that will best protect and keep your child safe.